List Layouts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds meaningful scope details: it includes Model space as a layout tab, includes paper-space layouts, and indicates the current layout. This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying what exactly is listed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that is direct and informative. Every element adds value: what is listed, which layout types are included, and that the current one is identified. No filler or redundant wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless read-only list tool with an output schema available, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know to invoke it correctly. The distinction between Model and paper-space layouts preempts likely confusion, and no prerequisites or side effects are relevant.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and no ambiguity exists around invocation arguments.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (list), the resource (layout tabs), and the exact scope (Model + paper-space layouts and current one). It also differentiates this from sibling tools like layout_create and layout_set_current by focusing on enumeration rather than mutation or selection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes its use case implicit: call this when you need to enumerate layout tabs and identify the current one. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with related list tools like viewport_list or layout_set_current. The intended context is clear enough but not fully spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.